I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Leon wrote:

For every example of states doing it better I can think of more that are doing it worse. I'm wary of states rights people because most of them that I've met want it because it allows them to push their social agenda.

That's a big portion of my rational for "State authority" (only people have 'rights' imo). I want people in my State to be free to marry whomever they want. I want people in my State to be able to put anything they choose into their own bodies. I want abortion to be safe and easy. I even want a State-run, taxpayer funded healthcare system.
BUT
I'm not an authoritarian who would force these things on millions of other people who may not want it. Self-determination is a well accepted human right. But at what level do you gain that right? If the United States encompassed the entire Western Hemisphere, would it be moral to establish a single policy that would be imposed on 1/4 of the Earth just because, hundreds of years before, wars and treaties and purchases made it into "one country"?
In the same vein, why is it moral to dictate these decisions to groups of millions of people in the United States who are vehemently opposed to them?

Last edited by comm on Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Leon wrote:

For every example of states doing it better I can think of more that are doing it worse. I'm wary of states rights people because most of them that I've met want it because it allows them to push their social agenda.

That's a big portion of my rational for "State authority" (only people have 'rights' imo). I want people in my State to be free to marry whomever they want. I want people in my State to be able to put anything they choose into their own bodies. I want abortion to be safe and easy. I even want a State-run, taxpayer funded healthcare system.
BUT
I'm not an authoritarian who would force these things on millions of other people who may not want it. Self-determination is a well accepted human right. But at what level do you gain that right? If the United States encompassed the entire Western Hemisphere, would it be moral to establish a single policy that would be imposed on 1/4 of the Earth just because, hundreds of years before, wars and treaties and purchases made it into "one country"?
In the same vein, why is it moral to dictate these decisions to groups of millions of people in the United States who are vehemently opposed to them?

Because of the moral rights of minorities, whether it's because they're gay, or because they want to smoke weed. Why should someone be substantially more free in one state than another. Why should the laws be so different because I was born in Mississippi versus Colorado, I mean why should the reactionary majority get to dictate to others on issues of those others personal lives.

I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Leon wrote:

For every example of states doing it better I can think of more that are doing it worse. I'm wary of states rights people because most of them that I've met want it because it allows them to push their social agenda.

That's a big portion of my rational for "State authority" (only people have 'rights' imo). I want people in my State to be free to marry whomever they want. I want people in my State to be able to put anything they choose into their own bodies. I want abortion to be safe and easy. I even want a State-run, taxpayer funded healthcare system.
BUT
I'm not an authoritarian who would force these things on millions of other people who may not want it. Self-determination is a well accepted human right. But at what level do you gain that right? If the United States encompassed the entire Western Hemisphere, would it be moral to establish a single policy that would be imposed on 1/4 of the Earth just because, hundreds of years before, wars and treaties and purchases made it into "one country"?
In the same vein, why is it moral to dictate these decisions to groups of millions of people in the United States who are vehemently opposed to them?

Because of the moral rights of minorities, whether it's because they're gay, or because they want to smoke weed. Why should someone be substantially more free in one state than another. Why should the laws be so different because I was born in Mississippi versus Colorado, I mean why should the reactionary majority get to dictate to others on issues of those others personal lives.

Because the level of freedom should reflect the democratic will of the people in that area as close is possible. That way democracy "works" for greater overall numbers of people regardless of which way they feel about the issues.

Take for example abortion- Let's say it's about 52-48 on the issue. If you have a national law, 52% are satisfied. But think if you got the issue down to each state, you'd likely raise the satisfaction level to 75% or higher.

And on any given issue not all people feel the same way, you can have different degrees on any issue ranging from drugs to gay marriage to the death penalty to state health care to education to "boring" issues like rail transportation, park funding and so on.

Also, having different states engaging in different policies allows one to observe the results and have a level of "democratic experimentation" that otherwise might not be possible. You'd have a greater marketplace of ideas and a greater potential for innovation.

The overriding belief in the attempt to pose total equality, especially over a large area and large numbers of people, is doomed to cause strife and failure because it is contradictory to nature and science. No two things on this planet have an equal chance at anything and an attempt to have such broad-scale equality is doomed to failure. You can have basic equality, but such a great level of national equality is a Sisyphian task. That doesn't mean you don't have basic equalities, but scrapping the benefits of local power (more direct democracy, marketplace of ideas, etc) in an attempt to have such great equality seems to be folly.

I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Leon wrote:

For every example of states doing it better I can think of more that are doing it worse. I'm wary of states rights people because most of them that I've met want it because it allows them to push their social agenda.

That's a big portion of my rational for "State authority" (only people have 'rights' imo). I want people in my State to be free to marry whomever they want. I want people in my State to be able to put anything they choose into their own bodies. I want abortion to be safe and easy. I even want a State-run, taxpayer funded healthcare system.
BUT
I'm not an authoritarian who would force these things on millions of other people who may not want it. Self-determination is a well accepted human right. But at what level do you gain that right? If the United States encompassed the entire Western Hemisphere, would it be moral to establish a single policy that would be imposed on 1/4 of the Earth just because, hundreds of years before, wars and treaties and purchases made it into "one country"?
In the same vein, why is it moral to dictate these decisions to groups of millions of people in the United States who are vehemently opposed to them?

Because of the moral rights of minorities, whether it's because they're gay, or because they want to smoke weed. Why should someone be substantially more free in one state than another. Why should the laws be so different because I was born in Mississippi versus Colorado, I mean why should the reactionary majority get to dictate to others on issues of those others personal lives.

Because the level of freedom should reflect the democratic will of the people in that area as close is possible. That way democracy "works" for greater overall numbers of people regardless of which way they feel about the issues.

Take for example abortion- Let's say it's about 52-48 on the issue. If you have a national law, 52% are satisfied. But think if you got the issue down to each state, you'd likely raise the satisfaction level to 75% or higher.

And on any given issue not all people feel the same way, you can have different degrees on any issue ranging from drugs to gay marriage to the death penalty to state health care to education to "boring" issues like rail transportation, park funding and so on.

Also, having different states engaging in different policies allows one to observe the results and have a level of "democratic experimentation" that otherwise might not be possible. You'd have a greater marketplace of ideas and a greater potential for innovation.

The overriding belief in the attempt to pose total equality, especially over a large area and large numbers of people, is doomed to cause strife and failure because it is contradictory to nature and science. No two things on this planet have an equal chance at anything and an attempt to have such broad-scale equality is doomed to failure. You can have basic equality, but such a great level of national equality is a Sisyphian task. That doesn't mean you don't have basic equalities, but scrapping the benefits of local power (more direct democracy, marketplace of ideas, etc) in an attempt to have such great equality seems to be folly.

So if I'm born in a backwards area, I should be subject to the majorities backwardness, and it should be enshrined in law?

So if I'm born in a backwards area, I should be subject to the majorities backwardness, and it should be enshrined in law?

So whatever wins it is you have about the way the world should be run should override the will of the 80% there?

If you want equality and democracy, you have to accept that you may be on the losing end.

Better it is from the tyrants of your state, forcing you to change states than the tyrants of a nation, forcing you to change countries.

You do realize that they think YOU are the one that is backwards, right? Why should they be subject to your law if they are majority?
=========================================

Let's take it in reverse, say the "enlightened ones" are the ones at the State level and it is the "backwards ones" in charge at the Federal Level. Do you still oppose State's rights?

Regardless of whether my State supports or opposes my personal preferences regarding issues, I could care less as I prefer losing at the state level to winning at the wrong level, the national level. The democratic principal and optimal delivery of democracy is more important than whether my views on gays getting married are carried out one way or the other.

So if I'm born in a backwards area, I should be subject to the majorities backwardness, and it should be enshrined in law?

So whatever wins it is you have about the way the world should be run should override the will of the 80% there?

If you want equality and democracy, you have to accept that you may be on the losing end.

Better it is from the tyrants of your state, forcing you to change states than the tyrants of a nation, forcing you to change countries.

You do realize that they think YOU are the one that is backwards, right? Why should they be subject to your law if they are majority?
=========================================

Let's take it in reverse, say the "enlightened ones" are the ones at the State level and it is the "backwards ones" in charge at the Federal Level. Do you still oppose State's rights?

Regardless of whether my State supports or opposes my personal preferences regarding issues, I could care less as I prefer losing at the state level to winning at the wrong level, the national level. The democratic principal and optimal delivery of democracy is more important than whether my views on gays getting married are carried out one way or the other.

Things at the national level are going to be moderate, so extremes from any end won't prevail. I don't care what they think, if they want to stop me from doing something that doesn't infringe on their rights why should their opinion matter?

Obviously, many things, maybe even most things, are done at the state level. For example, driving licenses.

Other things are done on the Federal level. Abortion is legal because the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. States have limited access to abortion because the Supreme Court has not ruled that unconstitutional.

In some sense, it is that simple.

Now, we do run into a slippery slope problem if your argument for power to the States is that,

"Because the level of freedom should reflect the democratic will of the people in that area as close is possible. That way democracy "works" for greater overall numbers of people regardless of which way they feel about the issues."

Because soon you will have people in parts of the state that feel that their state does not represent their values, and we should have laws based on the values of their city, then their county, then their street and then their house.

And, soon we will have canibals becuase that is the values of a particular neighborhood.

It is all silly.

Mature people realize that no government - no society - can perfectly match my values. Some things you just tolerate. There is no utopia. But, we try to do the best we can with what we are given. The U.S. is a pretty amazing country for the most part, with a particularly wise form of government, which allows for both Federalism and States Rights, having power invested in the people yet given to the state as well, and with checks and balances, including between large and small states within the union to name just a few.

For the most part, this makes people happy, even if parts makes people frustrated.

The U.S. has just had an election and up to (though probably less as many don't really care) 48% of the country is upset about it. Not to surprising considering the rhetoric and the money that was thrown around about the election.

This feeling of I want to take my marbles and go home will fade just as all the cry-baby liberals who said they were moving to Canada after Bush got re-elected faded away.

And, then we will wake up and we will try to find a way to come together as a nation. (Or, at least one can hope.)

Life goes on. People live their lives irrigardless of what happens in Washington.

I don't care what they think, if they want to stop me from doing something that doesn't infringe on their rights why should their opinion matter?

Why should yours matter more than theirs? What if something you are doing is infringing on a right of theirs?

Quote:

Because soon you will have people in parts of the state that feel that their state does not represent their values, and we should have laws based on the values of their city, then their county, then their street and then their house.

No, it will stop at counties or cites (think dry counties, cities that ban handguns), or in the case of a major city, maybe a burrough or ward. because those are the lowest incorporated and elected levels of government that are establishes, furthermore the States have powers specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution.

I don't care what they think, if they want to stop me from doing something that doesn't infringe on their rights why should their opinion matter?

Why should yours matter more than theirs? What if something you are doing is infringing on a right of theirs?

Quote:

Because soon you will have people in parts of the state that feel that their state does not represent their values, and we should have laws based on the values of their city, then their county, then their street and then their house.

No, it will stop at counties or cites (think dry counties, cities that ban handguns), or in the case of a major city, maybe a burrough or ward. because those are the lowest incorporated and elected levels of government that are establishes, furthermore the States have powers specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution.

Federal level trends towards moderation more than states. As I said, I'm talking about things that don't infringe, yet many local governments want to ban.

Things at the national level are going to be moderate, so extremes from any end won't prevail. I don't care what they think, if they want to stop me from doing something that doesn't infringe on their rights why should their opinion matter?

I'm sure many others would agree.
Why should I give up my right to fire employees just because they join a club called a 'union'?
Why should a fetus give up its right to life just because its inside you?
Why should I give up my right to property just because you want healthcare?

If something is popular enough to become a national right, it can be enshrined in the Constitution. If not, it doesn't deserve to be imposed on millions by a simple majority of Congress.

More importantly, I think you'll find pretty much every atrocity in history to have been committed (or at least assisted) by Federal governments.

Unposter wrote:

Now, we do run into a slippery slope problem if your argument for power to the States is that,

"Because the level of freedom should reflect the democratic will of the people in that area as close is possible. That way democracy "works" for greater overall numbers of people regardless of which way they feel about the issues."

Because soon you will have people in parts of the state that feel that their state does not represent their values, and we should have laws based on the values of their city, then their county, then their street and then their house.

Now that -is- silly.
By the same logic, a Hemispheric government imposing its will on nation-states is the 'slippery slope' of supporting Federal authority.

There's no more reason to think that States would allow cannibalism than to think that the lack of a Hemispheric government allows nations to allow cannibalism.

Hmmm. I posed a question about the possibility of a newly aligned liberal governing coalition and the responses are all about federalism. Odd--or dodging the question?

What I had in mind (forgive me for repeating some of what I posted in the first one):

a. Political:
It looks to me like the majority in enough states to deliver a decisive Electoral College vote no longer buy the conservative line that 'government is the problem, not the solution'. What it looks like to me is that a decisive majority want the government to deliver efficient, competent administration along with solutions to the community problems we are facing.

b. Economics:
A decisive majority think trickle down has been shown to be spectacularly misguided and somewhere around 70% want taxes on the rich raised. The question will be: How much? Occupy only lasted a few months, but they won the argument by raising public consciousness about the 1%. It is because of that that Romney's 47% had such an impact. Will we hear more about economic patriotism, like we did a bit during the campaign?

c. Culture:
re: gay rights, women's reproductive rights, immigration...and now maybe weed (???). We may begin to see something of a come-back for unions. White Identity politics and White Privilege will almost certainly be discussed openly for the first time on a national level. Even some evangelicals are questioning recent past positions.

I should say that when I put 'liberal' in the title, I had to pause and think about what Bill Clinton meant by it and use his definition, rather than the liberalism of 50 years ago. Obviously, conservatism has dragged the goal posts to the right. But still...

Why should I give up my right to fire employees just because they join a club called a 'union'?
...
Why should I give up my right to property just because you want healthcare?

comm made some interesting points:

Response:
Why is one richer man's 'rights' based on his greater wealth more important than his employees' rights? You sound like a feudal lord.

It looks to me like you understand 'freedom' to be solely the freedom of the wealthy to do whatever flits through their mind. Is freedom only the possession of those with money?

Why should I give up healthcare just because you want to control me like a piece of carpet to wipe your feet on?

Private property and its defense is vital in a capitalist economy, but it is not absolute. This is the problem with the far right. 'All men are created equal...' This does not mean that all property owners are created equal and the rest of you have no civil rights, although that is more or less what Southern slave owners thought.

It is not an 'all or nothing' proposition. I have heard of no modern American political philosophy saying all property should be confiscated by the government. The argument as I see it is how to balance the rights of property owners with the civil rights of everyone else. (Although I am one of the more extreme in thinking that we should return to the tax rates of the emergency around the WWII and allow the rich to display their economic patriotism by paying 90% of their excess profits in taxes to deal with the deficit 'crisis' that has resulted from bulldozing piles of cash into their bank accounts. Of the deficit hawks who don't agree with me--all of them--I consider to be preening deficit peacocks.)

And you've been kind enough to reinforce all of them for me. If you'll read up a bit, Leon was arguing that he should have Federal level "rights" that don't infringe on other people's "rights". I demonstrated a number of "rights" that others might want that similarly don't infringe on others'. And you've done me the favor of adding to the list.

Clearly, when diametrically opposed "rights" (which don't infringe on others) can be demanded by different groups of people, we should act to accommodate as many of those as possible (again, those "rights" which don't infringe on others' rights). The solution to this is smaller units of government, which are conveniently available in the form of States.

Just to be sure you understand... I don't necessarily agree with the "rights" I listed there, but listed them to make the point. You needn't argue the virtue of them